Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The principle of ‘Act of God’ serves as a defense in tort law, excusing a party from liability when an event occurs due to natural causes, directly and exclusively, without any human intervention, and which could not have been reasonably foreseen or prevented. This defense is rooted in the idea that one cannot be held responsible for events beyond human control. In the present case, the plaintiff seeks damages from the defendant for cargo damage caused by seepage during a flash flood. The core issue is whether the defendant can successfully invoke the ‘Act of God’ defense, given the extraordinary rainfall and resulting flood conditions.
The ‘Act of God’ Defense: Legal Principles
To successfully claim the ‘Act of God’ defense, the defendant must establish three key elements:
- Exceptional and Unusual Event: The event must be of an extraordinary nature, not merely a foreseeable occurrence.
- Absence of Human Agency: The event must be solely due to natural causes, without any contribution from human activity.
- Due Diligence and Lack of Negligence: The defendant must demonstrate that they took reasonable care to prevent the damage, and the event was not reasonably foreseeable despite their precautions.
Application to the Given Scenario
In this case, the heavy rainfall and resulting flash flood appear to satisfy the first two elements. Flash floods are inherently exceptional and unusual events, and the scenario explicitly states the flood occurred due to natural causes – heavy rainfall. However, the crucial element is whether the defendant exercised due diligence.
Defendant’s Precautions
The defendant took the precaution of covering the cargo with tarpaulin to protect it from rainfall from above. This demonstrates a degree of care. However, the water entered due to seepage from below, as the water level rose above the tyres and up to the platform level.
Foreseeability and Reasonable Care
The question arises whether it was reasonably foreseeable that a flash flood could raise the water level to such an extent. Given that hundreds of lorries were stranded, suggesting a widespread and severe flooding situation, a reasonable person might have anticipated the possibility of water levels rising significantly.
The court will likely consider whether the defendant could have taken additional precautions, such as choosing a different route, delaying the journey, or using waterproof containers. The fact that the water rose *above* the tyres suggests the event was more severe than a typical rainfall event.
Relevant Case Law
The case of Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, while not directly on ‘Act of God’, establishes the principle of strict liability and the need for reasonable care. Similarly, Nichols v Marsland (1876) 1 QBD 329 provides a classic example of the ‘Act of God’ defense succeeding, where an exceptionally heavy rainfall caused a reservoir to burst, and the defendant had taken reasonable precautions. However, the facts of Nichols are distinguishable as the rainfall was unprecedented.
Potential Outcome
The defendant has a strong argument for the ‘Act of God’ defense. However, the success of the defense will depend on whether the court finds the flood to be truly unforeseeable and whether the defendant’s precautions were reasonable in the circumstances. If the court determines that a reasonable person would have anticipated the possibility of such severe flooding and taken further precautions, the defense may fail.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the defendant has a plausible defense based on the ‘Act of God’ doctrine. The exceptional nature of the rainfall and flood, coupled with the precautions taken to protect the cargo from above, support this claim. However, the court will scrutinize the foreseeability of the event and the reasonableness of the defendant’s actions, considering the widespread nature of the flooding and the potential for anticipating higher water levels. The ultimate outcome will hinge on a careful balancing of these factors.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.